tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (12/13/85)
Here in Fascichusetts the new seat belt law is about to go
into effect. They are going to use the lack of a visible
restraint to capriciously pull people over; all they need is
an excuse. (For example, if you normally go 60 mph, you
don't get pulled over for speeding. But if you are not
wearing a seat belt, they'll pull you over at 56 mph.) Why?
Because the staties want the seat belt law enforced. Why?
<enter heavy disgust mode>
"Because it saves lives. ... Remember, it is a privilege to
drive." -- anonymous (who doesn't mind breaking other
driving laws, as long as he isn't stupid enough to get
caught, in which case he thinks he deserves it)
<exit heavy disgust mode>
Now I wear my seat belt as a matter of habit, and take it
off only in exceptional circumstances. But I am getting
tired of having these morons telling me what to do.
David Hudson
Heil Dukakis!moore@mit-eddie.UUCP (Andrew M. Moore) (12/15/85)
I can see your point about being annoyed at the 'staties' pulling you over the ones already wearing seatbelts. The problem is that piles of drivers still refuse to wear them, of course; there is now way for the staties to know which ones are wearing them or not. Solution? Pull everyone over. What if boils down to is the fact that the ones not wearing belts are making it a hassle for those of us who do wear them. After all, they're just trying to keep us from dying right? (and before you turn on the flames, do you think they'd enforce the law if they didn't approve of it? On second thought, they have superiors...) In any case, I'm not against their trying to save lives, what I'm against is the ones who don't wear the belts, making it a hassle, in the long run, for those tho do wear them. -drew
dsi@unccvax.UUCP (Dataspan Inc) (12/16/85)
> mucho grumbling about Taxachusetts seat belt law
Frankly, I am sick and tired of paying higher insurance premiums for
both automobile and major medical, because of the 90 % of you who don't care
to belt up when you drive. Rehashing old John Stuart Mill arguments about
freedom is moot. The fact that the difference between reconstructive surgury
and a sore shoulder is made every hour of every day by those who wear their
belts should be sufficient reason for everyone to belt up voluntarily.
But NOOOOOOO!
Then again, there is the cost to "society" because of the incredible
pain and suffering "utils" accumulated due solely to non belt wearing. You
can't find me one person lying in a hospital bed right now (due to their
non-belt-wearing results) who would state that being there was worth it because
they wanted to be civilly disobedient. Howsa 'bout that guy in the next
E-R suite whose situation wasn't preventable, but isn't getting all the
medical attention he possibly could because person B didn't care to wear
their belts and is bleeding buckets onto the floor.
Anti-belties have a point: people who defy the law are engaged in
natural selection. This would be fine if people were only responsible to
themselves, but 99.5% are not so antisocial. However, the "natural selection"
business may be true among non-belt-users: I have noticed an amazing correlation
between the most grusome wrecks and non-belt usage. Usually, the frame benders
exhibit no belt usage, bald tyres, brake pads down to the rivets, etc.
We're not talking about ghetto junk either, but rather cars owned presumably
by responsible family types who don't beat their kids, go to church, etc.
The true libertarian would be against Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSS) because as free thinking, rational humans, they alone should be able
to decide whether or not a vehicle is fit. As a practicing engineer, I am
not even able to determine (from ordinary inspection) whether a new vehicle
is fit or not from an engineering standpoint.
As a driving enthusiast and recreational mechanic, I * know * that people
permit their vehicles to deteriorate to levels which are patently defective.
There are tons of this junk on the road right outside the door here. If they
aren't going to pull their damn drums and caliper their rotors, the least that
they can do for themselves is to belt up in prepration for the inevitable.
For you enthusiasts who carry "On Liberty" in the glove compartment, you
need to prepare for that aforementioned jerk who can't spare the cost of a
couple of cases of beer to get Michelins instead of Western Auto Macho Belteds.
Seat belt laws are trivial. It could be much worse. You could have
to demonstrate your proficiency on a skidpad, or have your vehicle impounded
for piss-poor mechanical maintainence.
David Anthony
DataSpan, Incjohn@gcc-milo.ARPA (John Allred) (12/16/85)
In article <294@frog.UUCP> tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) writes: >Here in Fascichusetts the new seat belt law is about to go >into effect. They are going to use the lack of a visible >restraint to capriciously pull people over; all they need is >an excuse. (For example, if you normally go 60 mph, you >don't get pulled over for speeding. But if you are not >wearing a seat belt, they'll pull you over at 56 mph.) Why? > >Because the staties want the seat belt law enforced. Why? > ><enter heavy disgust mode> >"Because it saves lives. ... Remember, it is a privilege to >drive." -- anonymous (who doesn't mind breaking other >driving laws, as long as he isn't stupid enough to get >caught, in which case he thinks he deserves it) ><exit heavy disgust mode> > > David Hudson > Not quite. It seems that Empress Dole (Sec. of Transportation) has decreed that airbags will be mandatory (gag) unless n% (n > 50, i think) of the states pass mandatory seat belt laws. I, for one, would rather have seatbelts than airbags. <supressing long, rambling tirade against airbags and regulatory agencies> -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john
nrh@inmet.UUCP (12/17/85)
>/* Written 7:28 pm Dec 14, 1985 by moore@mit-eddie in inmet:net.politics */ > > > >I can see your point about being annoyed at the 'staties' pulling you over >the ones already wearing seatbelts. The problem is that piles of drivers >still refuse to wear them, of course; there is now way for the staties to >know which ones are wearing them or not. Solution? Pull everyone over. >What if boils down to is the fact that the ones not wearing belts are making >it a hassle for those of us who do wear them. After all, they're just trying >to keep us from dying right? (and before you turn on the flames, do you think >they'd enforce the law if they didn't approve of it? On second thought, they >have superiors...) In any case, I'm not against their trying to save lives, >what I'm against is the ones who don't wear the belts, making it a hassle, in >the long run, for those tho do wear them. > >-drew >/* End of text from inmet:net.politics */ I think not, Drew. The folks who refuse to wear seatbelts are doing a foolish thing, granted, but the process by which the wasteful destruction of their lives becomes a "hassle" to the rest of us is not THEIR fault, but rather the fault of those who dislike allowing other people to do as they please. There's a place for this sort of attitude when you're raising children, but not when you're dealing with (moral) peers. Unfortunately, this attitude has been enshrined, along with "Mom & Apple Pie". Lowering the highway speed limit to (say) 10 mph would also save lives, but they haven't gotten 'round to that yet. It is that group of people who hassle the rest of us -- if everyone were to wear a seatbelt, they'd only find some other excuse.... I'm not looking forward to when it becomes possible to condition a human being to always obey the law.....
rfradenb@bbnccv.UUCP (Roger Fradenburgh) (12/17/85)
>Here in Fascichusetts the new seat belt law is about to go >into effect. Because Detroit (and, therefore Washington) wants seat belt laws so they can get out of equipping cars with air bags (whatever Detroit wants from Washington, Detroit gets... Well, almost. Witness the way the 5 mph bumper requirement was gutted at their behest). >(For example, if you normally go 60 mph, you >don't get pulled over for speeding. But if you are not >wearing a seat belt, they'll pull you over at 56 mph.) Why? If this new law results in tougher speed limit enforcement, GOOD (no, I'm not advocating speeding tickets for those who drive 56-60... unless, of course, they're in a 35 mph zone :-))! Massachusetts roads are heavily populated with boorish, arrogant scofflaws, and right now, they're in control. Staties everywhere are inclined to be prima donnas, but if the roads must belong to either them or the jerks who endanger everyone who drives here, I vote for the Staties. >Now I wear my seat belt as a matter of habit, and take it >off only in exceptional circumstances. But I am getting >tired of having these morons telling me what to do. I suppose you'd rather keep subsidizing the morons who are driving up insurance rates, health care costs and the like by continuing to kill themselves and others. Everyone has a Constitutional right to be stupid, but not at the expense of everyone else. >Heil Dukakis! As Joan Rivers would say, oh, grow up!! -Roger Fradenburgh
abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (12/18/85)
In article <294@frog.UUCP> tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) writes: > >Now I wear my seat belt as a matter of habit, and take it >off only in exceptional circumstances. But I am getting >tired of having these morons telling me what to do. > > David Hudson > >Heil Dukakis! You might be interested to know that "these morons" also pay for the police who investigate the accidents, the ambulance and fire crews who respond to the accident, and, in many cases, the very expensive costs of a shock/trauma unit (well over $1000 per day) to nurse you back to life. In addition, other "morons" who also pay auto insurance premiums, which I undertand are very high in your state, are underwritingg unnecessarily high settlements because some other "intelligent person" exercised his right not to wear a seat belt. Perhaps the mandatory seat belt laws should be amended to state that anyone hurt in an auto accident and found not to have buckled up be required to assume the full costs associated with his injuries, including the cost of police, fire, ambulance, hospital, court, and rehabilitation! Perhaps the same should be true if the intelligentsia who ride motorcycles without proper helmets.
john@gcc-milo.ARPA (John Allred) (12/18/85)
In article <394@unccvax.unccvax.UUCP> dsi@unccvax.UUCP (Dataspan Inc) writes: > > Seat belt laws are trivial. It could be much worse. You could have >to demonstrate your proficiency on a skidpad, or have your vehicle impounded >for piss-poor mechanical maintainence. > >David Anthony >DataSpan, Inc Skidpad proficiency *should* be required! If the general population could maneuver a ton or so of metal in non-ideal conditions, there would be many more people alive today, and far fewer idiots driving. -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john
john@gcc-milo.ARPA (John Allred) (12/18/85)
In article <806@brl-tgr.ARPA> abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper (CTAB) <abc>) writes: > >Perhaps the mandatory seat belt laws should be amended to state >that anyone hurt in an auto accident and found not to have buckled up be >required to assume the full costs associated with his injuries, >including the cost of police, fire, ambulance, hospital, court, and >rehabilitation! Unfortunately, several courts have ruled against "contributory negligence" in cases where some idiot was hurt while not wearing a seatbelt. Can anyone in netland cite specific cases? In several states there are auto insurers who do have some sort of rate reduction for seat belt wearers; if they are found *not* wearing their belts in an accident, benefits are limited. Unfortunately, I am also in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, and the insurance commisar is not very enlightened. -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john
mberns@ut-ngp.UUCP (Mark Bernstein) (12/18/85)
[] > From: abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) > ...Perhaps the mandatory seat belt laws should be amended to state > that anyone hurt in an auto accident and found not to have buckled up be > required to assume the full costs associated with his injuries, > including the cost of police, fire, ambulance, hospital, court, and > rehabilitation! Amen. And further, the insurance companies themselves could require seat belt use as a necessary prerequisite for paying claims in accidents. Perhaps this by itself could satisfy individuals who feel that state laws infringe on their right to liberty, yet encourage seat belt use and relieve the pressure on public services such as hospitals, etc. One could wear a seat belt or not; free choice. But you'd KNOW up-front that you were waiving your insurance coverage in that event. You'd be free (albeit slightly crazy) to do so. Just a few well-publicized instances of insurance companies refusing to cover medical bills when seat belts were not used might dramatically increase belt use. And, for the flaming libertarians out there, you'd still have the option (without *state* compulsion) to choose not to wear one, if it was that important to you. The same could go for motorcycle helmet use. A general comment after several months of this stuff on the net: Regardless of state laws or insurance companies - I find it absolutely INCREDIBLE that a person with an IQ above 20 could, on the basis of an abstract issue of "liberty" (or any other reason), CHOOSE not to wear a seat belt. This whole discussion, which has appeared in the net over the last several months (now revived in connection with Massachusetts), is the weirdest thing I've seen in quite some time. I'm sorry, but you have to be really stupid (flame all you want) not to take this elementary precaution against injury or death before taking off down the highway at 55 (or in the case of the other "liberty" issue in net.auto, at 85 or whatever with your radar detector). Many complainers about the seat belt laws would probably agree easily with me. But all the talk along the lines of "... of *course* I wear mine, but I resent the government forcing me to..." I consider outright dangerous rhetorical crap, which only encourages some people to think they *ought* not bother to wear them, and postpones the taking of appropriate measures to get people to use them. As has been pointed out on the net time and again, seat belt use is NOT simply a matter involving a single person's choice. And I could argue that *I* resent other people's negligence forcing my insurance rates and taxes up. The whole thing is ridiculous - does one argue that there ought to be no laws against stealing because such laws infringe on one's right to choose to steal, and after all, the only person harmed is the one who was robbed? Should there be no laws at all governing speed limits on city streets and highways? (Note: the question of whether 55 is a reasonable limit for interstates is quite separate. The issue here is whether anyone could argue that there ought to be *no* speed limits at all). Of course, reasonable people answer "no" to both questions. But how is the case of seat belts truly different to some of the same people? I just don't understand it. The potential (and actual) "harm" to society and its interests in the lack of seat belt use is patently clear - and it has little to do with the injury to the individual per se. That we as a society even need to be talking about laws and "liberty" in this regard is a sad, sad commentary, and a perversion of the Constitutional concepts of liberty and freedom. -Mark Bernstein (UT - Austin, Speech)
ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) (12/18/85)
In article <806@brl-tgr.ARPA> abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper (CTAB) <abc>) writes: >In article <294@frog.UUCP> tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) writes: >>Now I wear my seat belt as a matter of habit, and take it >>off only in exceptional circumstances. But I am getting >>tired of having these morons telling me what to do. >You might be interested to know that "these morons" also pay for the >police who investigate the accidents, the ambulance and fire crews who >respond to the accident, and, in many cases, the very expensive costs of >a shock/trauma unit (well over $1000 per day) to nurse you back to >life. In addition, other "morons" who also pay auto insurance premiums, >which I undertand are very high in your state, are underwritingg >unnecessarily high settlements because some other "intelligent person" >exercised his right not to wear a seat belt. According to that "reasoning" we should ban smoking--after all, more people getting lung cancer raises everybody's insurance rate (you _may_ get a lower rate if you're a nonsmoker, but "may" isn't "always") and the extra fires due to smoking cause excess fire-related costs that affect non-smokers too. We should ban all non-carpool auto driving because everyone else would otherwise have to pay the costs accociated with the extra accidents, the police, ambulance, fire dept., shock trauma unit, auto insurance, etc.... >Perhaps the mandatory seat belt laws should be amended to state >that anyone hurt in an auto accident and found not to have buckled up be >required to assume the full costs associated with his injuries, >including the cost of police, fire, ambulance, hospital, court, and >rehabilitation! >Perhaps the same should be true if the intelligentsia who ride >motorcycles without proper helmets. But although not having a seatbelt on generally increases the damages caused to the non-wearer in an accident, it doesn't by itself cause the accident. Perhaps they should be forced to pay only the difference between what the damages would have been if they had worn the belt and what the damages actually are. (Such an estimate would be hard to make, but it would definitely exclude such things as police and court costs.) Furthermore, the same should be applied to, for instance, fires started by cigarettes--you have to pay for all the costs, including loss of your property in the fire, charge for the fire truck to come--and unlike the seatbelt case, if you hadn't smoked you wouldn't have incurred any costs at all. (To be sure, if you aren't careless with your cigarettes you won't start any fires, but then if you never get in an accident the seatbelt isn't going to matter either.) DISCLAIMER: I support neither the "charge the seatbelt skippers who have accidents" nor the "charge the smokers who start fires" policies. I am just trting to show how ridiculous the "charge the seatbelt skippers" idea is. -- If you know the alphabet up to 'k', you can teach it up to 'k'. Kenneth Arromdee BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS CSNET: ins_akaa@jhunix.CSNET ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!umcp-cs!aplvax!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa ...allegra!hopkins!jhunix!ins_akaa
mahoney@bach.DEC (12/18/85)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 13-DEC-1985 17:16--------------------- Do not blame the state governments this is thanks to Ronald Reagan and crew. they have mandated that either 2/3 of the states pass mandatory seat belt laws or they will force Detriot to put air bags in the car. I also believe (but am not sure if this true) that if they don't pass the law that the states will loss federal highway money. This will be a loss of quite a few millions of dollars. This is why Massachussetts finally passed right turn on red. The feds said either pass the law or you will loss a large portion of highway funding. I wear my seatbelt and personal think it is a good idea. I agree withyou though that it is stupid for the government to mandate it for adults. (I think children should be force to waer them myself) Brian Mahoney mahoney%bach.dec@decwrl.arpa "If someone has a cure all you can be sure it will make you sick."
az@ada-uts.UUCP (12/18/85)
> ***** ada-uts:net.politics / gcc-milo!john / 9:43 am Dec 16, 1985 > Not quite. It seems that Empress Dole (Sec. of Transportation) has decreed > that airbags will be mandatory (gag) unless n% (n > 50, i think) of the states > pass mandatory seat belt laws. ... > John Allred And auto manufacturers spent a great deal of money trying to ensure that the law gets passed. They also spent money on commercials urging people to wear seat belts. I'd rather they confined themselves to the latter. Alex Zatsman.
drelles@encore.UUCP (Robert Drelles) (12/19/85)
In article <408@gcc-milo.ARPA> john@gcc-milo.UUCP (John Allred) writes: >In article <294@frog.UUCP> tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) writes: >>Here in Fascichusetts the new seat belt law is about to go >>into effect. They are going to use the lack of a visible >>restraint to capriciously pull people over; all they need is >>an excuse. (For example, if you normally go 60 mph, you >>don't get pulled over for speeding. But if you are not >>wearing a seat belt, they'll pull you over at 56 mph.) Why? ... > >Not quite. It seems that Empress Dole (Sec. of Transportation) has decreed >that airbags will be mandatory (gag) unless n% (n > 50, i think) of the states >pass mandatory seat belt laws. I, for one, would rather have seatbelts than >airbags. ... The attitude in the U.S. generally, and in net.auto-land in particular, towards reasonable highway safety measures, is rather bizzare. Seat belt laws are not simply a matter of somebody's right to be suicidal. The increased medical costs incurred by un-seatbelted accident victims are social costs. Even if these costs are not re-imbursed through taxes, insurance, or other collective means, they represent an opportunity cost to the economy. Since enforcement under the Mass. law is rather unobtrusive, I don't see any grave threat to liberty here. Many of the arguments against airbags were originally used against seatbelts. I would expect that airbags to be much more acceptable to the live-free-or-die crowd, given that they work automatically and do not require police enforcement. However, true belivers are always ready to seek out and destroy all evidence of democratic government, no matter how rudimentary. And we the taxpayers/ratepayers will pick up the tab as usual, unless an unbelted driver comes flying through our windshield first. I'd personally rather suffer under the dictatorship of fewer fatalities, lower insurance -- and perhaps (gasp!) being rid of the 55mph speed limit when these happen. The really sad thing is that many anti-regulatory conservatives tend to be quite pro-regulatory when their own moral values are threatened. Where are the libertarians when Jerry Falwell wants to impose his "moral" agenda on other people? Where are the libertarians when the D.o.D. wants to censor unclassified technical research? Rob Drelles, Encore Computer, Marlboro, MA Disclaimer: These opinions are exclusively my own, and do not represent in any way those of my employer, co-workers, or other hangers on.
bs@faron.UUCP (Robert D. Silverman) (12/19/85)
> In article <408@gcc-milo.ARPA> john@gcc-milo.UUCP (John Allred) writes: > >In article <294@frog.UUCP> tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) writes: > >>Here in Fascichusetts the new seat belt law is about to go > >>into effect. They are going to use the lack of a visible > >>restraint to capriciously pull people over; all they need is > etc. > >Not quite. It seems that Empress Dole (Sec. of Transportation) has decreed > >that airbags will be mandatory (gag) unless n% (n > 50, i think) of the states > >pass mandatory seat belt laws. I, for one, would rather have seatbelts than > >airbags. > ... > > The attitude in the U.S. generally, and in net.auto-land in particular, > towards reasonable highway safety measures, is rather bizzare. > > Seat belt laws are not simply a matter of somebody's right to be suicidal. > The increased medical costs incurred by un-seatbelted > accident victims are social costs. Even if these costs are not re-imbursed > through taxes, insurance, or other collective means, they represent > an opportunity cost to the economy. Since enforcement under the Mass. > etc. There are lots of things that people do that carry both direct economic and opportunity costs. Smoking and Alcohol come directly to mind. Going to ban those too? We do not live in a risk free society nor should we expect to. Many things that we do really 'aren't good for us' but we do them anyway such as smoking and drinking. We already tried prohibition and it was a complete failure. When in hell is the government going to learn from that mistake and stop trying to regulate people's private lives?? !!! I include in this the prohibition against things which are currently illegal such as narcotics, prostitution etc. You cannot keep an adult from obtaining something that he wants and the cost of trying to stop the unstoppable is also quite high. Anyone have any idea what the government's futile attempts to stop drug traffic costs us taxpayers each year?? Drug traffic has been around for thousands of years and no one has stopped it yet. Not to mention that the illegality of drugs causes all sorts of associated crimes as people steal to get money for their fixes!!!! Let's put an end to 'victimless' crime and get the blankety blank government off our backs!!! Bob Silverman
alex@ucla-cs.UUCP (12/19/85)
can someone point me to an independent study that computes the cost to society that arises from people who don't wear their seat belts? the new seatbelt laws must have an enforcement cost. after all, while a highway patrolman is pulling me over for going 56 and not wearing my seatbelt, a lot of people who are wearing seatbelts are going to zoom by at 75. are we going to hire more police, just to enforce the seat belt law? i guess i'd like someone to give convincing cost benefit analysis proving that society really benefits from the new seat belt laws. in the meantime, i'm not going to wear my seat belt if i don't want to. just because there is a law, it doesn't mean it has to be obeyed. and before you condemn me, how many of you never drive over the posted speed limit? alex
dsi@unccvax.UUCP (Dataspan Inc) (12/19/85)
> The attitude in the U.S. generally, and in net.auto-land in particular, > towards reasonable highway safety measures, is rather bizzare. > > Many of the arguments against airbags were originally used > against seatbelts. I would expect that airbags to be much > more acceptable to the live-free-or-die crowd, given that they work > automatically and do not require police enforcement. However, true Airbags are a useful adjunct to seatbelts IN THE EVENT OF A COLLISION. Airbags perform absolutely no useful purpose whatsoever in the other 99 % of the time we spend in the car performing normal motoring behaviour. I really don't know quite how seatbelts got to be a poltical issue. They are an integral part of the safety equipment in the vehicle, just like dual circuit brakes, safety rims, and all those other innovations. Seat belts keep your butt planted in the seat when the time comes to avoid a situation. It is much more difficult to control the car when you are sliding down a full foam bench seat. Most people have not had skidpad training and have no idea whatsoever of what to expect when they have to avoid an accident, or at least minimize their injuries. The real key to this whole thing is to depoliticize the issue. Wearing one's belts or equipping cars with airbags is almost purely an engineering consideration. Belts improve vehicle control in demanding situations by keeping the driver in his appointed place. Airbags do not. Instead of worrying about what happens from T=0- of a wreck, why not try to avoid getting there in the first place? Now, if we could only get cars that exhibit proper handling and braking (i.e. the best engineering we can muster) we'd watch the accident rate drop further. Frankly, I'd like to see the 55 mph speed limit go away, too. However, I might not be comfortable sharing the Interstate with a guy in a 73 Impala with no shocks and Air-Float Supremes on the rims... David Anthony DataSpan, Inc
ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) (12/20/85)
> Seat belt laws are not simply a matter of somebody's right to be suicidal. > The increased medical costs incurred by un-seatbelted > accident victims are social costs. Even if these costs are not re-imbursed > through taxes, insurance, or other collective means, they represent > an opportunity cost to the economy. Since enforcement under the Mass. > law is rather unobtrusive, I don't see any grave threat to liberty > here. In other words: the government has decreed that if you are injured, I must pick up part of your expenses. It then uses that as a justification for forcing you to take measures to avoid injury. This would be funny if it weren't so scary.
minow@decvax.UUCP (Martin Minow) (12/20/85)
"alex" asks whether independent studies have been done estimating the costs of not wearing seat belts. Two studies were done in Sweden in the early/mid 1970's. One carefully estimated the total cost to society of "cleaning up" after a traffic fatality (exclusive of insurance payments, as I recall). This included the cost of police and medical emergency services, as well as more general "social" costs (the child eventually pays for his education by becoming a contributing taxpayer, for example). In round numbers, cleaning up the mess costs about $50,000 per accident. A second study examined every fatal accident with Volvos during one year. Particpants included Volvo, the insurance companies, TSV (the motor-vechicle bureau), and the people who normally investigate airplane crashes. There were 131 fatalities. 129 were not wearing seat belts. Shortly thereafter, Sweden passed a mandatory seat belt law. Martin Minow decvax!minow
ajaym@ihu1h.UUCP (Jay Mitchell) (12/20/85)
> > > > I can see your point about being annoyed at the 'staties' pulling you over > the ones already wearing seatbelts. The problem is that piles of drivers > still refuse to wear them, of course; there is now way for the staties to > know which ones are wearing them or not. Solution? Pull everyone over. > What if boils down to is the fact that the ones not wearing belts are making > it a hassle for those of us who do wear them. After all, they're just trying > to keep us from dying right? (and before you turn on the flames, do you think > they'd enforce the law if they didn't approve of it? On second thought, they > have superiors...) In any case, I'm not against their trying to save lives, > what I'm against is the ones who don't wear the belts, making it a hassle, in > the long run, for those tho do wear them. > > -drew ========== Allow me the liberty to do a simple replacement with the above. ========== "I can see your point about being annoyed at the 'staties' pulling you over the ones not carrying firearms. The problem is that hourds of people still refuse to register them, of course; there is no way for the staties to know which ones are carrying them or not. Solution? Search everyone over. What it boils down to is the fact that the ones carrying unregistered firearms are making it a hassle for those of us who have registered them. After all, they're just trying to keep people from dying right? (and on and on...)." IN FACT, I BET PEOPLE HAVE UNREGISTERED FIREARMS IN THEIR HOUSES! SOLUTION? SEARCH THEM? AFTER ALL, WE WANT TO BE PROTECTED FROM PEOPLE CARYING GUNS, DONT WE? DRUGS? STOP PEOPLE WHEREVER THEY ARE AT, WHATEVER THEY ARE DOING? WE DONT WANT THAT STUFF GETTING IN THE WRONG HANDS, FOR SURE! BETTER YET, ARRESTED LATELY? WELL, WE CANT TAKE ANY CHANCES - IN PRISON BUDDY. BESIDES, IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE TO HAVE TRIALS AND PAY JUDGES ANYWAY! Wake up, why dont you? Just how far should this go? -- ------------------------- Jay Mitchell ihnp4!ihu1h!ajaym -------------------------
dsi@unccvax.UUCP (Dataspan Inc) (12/20/85)
> >Perhaps the mandatory seat belt laws should be amended to state > >that anyone hurt in an auto accident and found not to have buckled up be > >required to assume the full costs associated with his injuries, > >including the cost of police, fire, ambulance, hospital, court, and > >rehabilitation! > > Unfortunately, several courts have ruled against "contributory negligence" in The North Carolina seatbelt law was specifically written so that failure to wear the belt could not be actionable in the contributory negligence sense. I thought that North Carolina was one of very few states in which contibutory negligence of another party could save you from a negligence action.... dya
svn@sdchema.UUCP (Sameer Nadkarni) (12/21/85)
In article <146@decvax.UUCP> minow@decvax.UUCP (Martin minow) writes: >"alex" asks whether independent studies have been done estimating >the costs of not wearing seat belts. > >Two studies were done in Sweden in the early/mid 1970's. One >carefully estimated the total cost to society of "cleaning up" >after a traffic fatality (exclusive of insurance payments, .... >In round numbers, cleaning up the mess costs about $50,000 per accident. Was this for fatalities only involving non-usage of seat-belts or was it for all fatal accidents? > >A second study examined every fatal accident with Volvos during >one year. Particpants included Volvo, the insurance companies, >TSV (the motor-vechicle bureau), and the people who normally >investigate airplane crashes. There were 131 fatalities. >129 were not wearing seat belts. > >Shortly thereafter, Sweden passed a mandatory seat belt law. > >Martin Minow >decvax!minow What I would like to know is how many of those 131 fatalities were caused BECAUSE the people did not buckle up. The statistics are valid only if use of seat-belts would have helped in any way. What I mean, is that if the accident involved a crash where someone could have been saved (by preventing a dive into the dash/windsheild, or getting thrown out of the car) by using a seat-belt, then the argument that seat-belts save lives is valid. But if the accident resulted in some sort of explosion thus causing fatalities, or flying "objects" (glass?) caused deaths, or some such situation where seat-belts would not have made any difference, then I think that pointing the finger at seat-belt non-users is baseless. I presume that studies examining "every fatal accident" (with Volvos or otherwise) would prob'ly include accidents of the latter type also, where fatalities were not a direct consequence of not using seat-belts. Is that correct? Sameer Nadkarni sdcsvax!sdchema!svn If you think this is somebody else's opinion, think again.
abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (12/22/85)
In article <1467@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) writes: > >According to that "reasoning" we should ban smoking--after all, more people >getting lung cancer raises everybody's insurance rate ... > >Furthermore, the same should be applied to, for instance, fires started by cigarettes... > >DISCLAIMER: I support neither the "charge the seatbelt skippers who have >accidents" nor the "charge the smokers who start fires" policies. I am just >trting to show how ridiculous the "charge the seatbelt skippers" idea is. Lung cancer and house fires are irrelevant to the seat belt issue. It needs no pseudo-reasoning by analogy to be discussed. Auto insurance rates are going through the roof, and it seems evident that a few simple corrective measures can bring them down for everyone. If a problem is decidable on its own merits, one need not introduce irrelevant analogies to confound the issue. Brint
abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (12/22/85)
The New York seat belt law is estimated to have saved over 170 lives already. Does this count?
abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper ) (12/22/85)
In article <4721@alice.UUCP> ark@alice.UucP (Andrew Koenig) writes: > >In other words: the government has decreed that if you are injured, >I must pick up part of your expenses. It then uses that as a justification >for forcing you to take measures to avoid injury. This would be funny >if it weren't so scary. Of course the government has so decreed! Who else pays the ICU bill if you don't have enough insurance? Who pays the cop who investigates the accident? Who often pays the ambulance and fire clean-up crews? First, your insurance (i.e., some of the rest oUS)S) and second, the government (ALL the REST OF US). THAT IS SCARY. The beltless morons have a huge claim on my pocketbook!
warren@pluto.UUCP (warren burstein) (12/22/85)
when someone posts a paragraph in all caps i ignore it -- the maxwell r. mayhem institute for quandary requiem and maternal sciamachy accept no substitutes.
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (12/23/85)
Mr Hudson states that he is tired of having the morons tell him what to do. I see it more as a case of having to tell the morons what to do. T. C. Wheeler
minow@decvax.UUCP (Martin Minow) (12/23/85)
Continuing my comments on the Swedish seatbelt law study: >>Two studies were done in Sweden in the early/mid 1970's. One >>carefully estimated the total cost to society of "cleaning up" >>after a traffic fatality (exclusive of insurance payments, .... >>In round numbers, cleaning up the mess costs about $50,000 per accident. > Was this for fatalities only involving non-usage of seat-belts or > was it for all fatal accidents? All fatal accidents. >What I would like to know is how many of those 131 fatalities were >caused BECAUSE the people did not buckle up. The statistics are >valid only if use of seat-belts would have helped in any way. I don't remember reading an answer to this question. The odds still look like 60:1 against you if you don't buckle up. (Naive estimate, no math complaints, please.) Anecdotal evidence that someone "would have been killed if he wasn't thrown clear" are just that: the is no way to check this. >I presume that studies examining "every fatal accident" (with Volvos or >otherwise) would prob'ly include accidents of the latter type also, where >fatalities were not a direct consequence of not using seat-belts. Is that >correct? > Sameer Nadkarni > sdcsvax!sdchema!svn I've been in two accidents wearing seat belts, one in a micro-car (Fiat 850) that I drove off the road to avoid a more serious collision. No injuries in either. Being restrained by the seat belt enabled me to maintain control of the car, steering it off the road (and avoiding a tree). Without the seat belt, I believe I would have been tossed around by the first bump and consequently have lost total control of the situation. Martin Minow decvax!minow
ajaym@ihu1h.UUCP (Jay Mitchell) (12/24/85)
> > when someone posts a paragraph in all caps i ignore it > Let me thank you for reading, then ignoring and THEN responding to my article! -- ------------------------- Jay Mitchell ihnp4!ihu1h!ajaym -------------------------
warren@pluto.UUCP (Warren Burstein) (12/26/85)
> > when someone posts a paragraph in all caps i ignore it > Let me thank you for reading, then ignoring and THEN responding to my article! I didn't read the paragraph in caps. I noticed it was so as soon as it came on the screen so I skipped it. -- The Maxwell R. Mayhem Institute for Quandary Requiem and Maternal Sciamachy Accept no substitutes.
mbr@aoa.UUCP (Mark Rosenthal) (12/26/85)
In article <806@brl-tgr.ARPA> abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper (CTAB) <abc>) writes: >Perhaps the mandatory seat belt laws should be amended to state >that anyone hurt in an auto accident and found not to have buckled up be >required to assume the full costs associated with his injuries, >including the cost of police, fire, ambulance, hospital, court, and >rehabilitation! This idea gets suggested now and then. It may be a good idea in principle, but it depends on an impartial administrator to judge whether or not you were buckled up. Do you really think we can trust the insurance companies to be impartial when their money is involved? If so, I think you are rather naive. Think back to the year the insurance companies here in Mass. convinced the state insurance commission to allow them to set their own rates. They claimed that competition would bring rates down. What happened? People were placed in "assigned risk pools" (you know - the rating system whose purpose is to allow the insurance companies to charge you double because you have a bad driving record) based on living in a neighborhood the insurance companies didn't approve of. The average increase that year was so high that the state legislature passed a law rolling back all increases to a maximum of 25% over the previous year (down from 50%-100% increases). And even after the law was passed, the companies dragged their feet for many months before mailing refunds. Now, would you really trust an insurance company to make this determination fairly, when the outcome will determine whether or not they will have to shell out 1000's (or perhaps 10,000's or even 100,000's) of dollars? -- Mark of the Valley of Roses ...!{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!aoa!mbr "Oh, dear mother, what a fool I be. Six young fellows come a' courtin' me. Five are blind and the other couldn't see. Oh, dear mother, what a fool I be."
tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (12/27/85)
>> According to that "reasoning" we should ban smoking--after >> all, more people getting lung cancer raises everybody's >> insurance rate ... >> >> Furthermore, the same should be applied to, for instance, >> fires started by cigarettes... > Lung cancer and house fires are irrelevant to the seat belt issue. It > needs no pseudo-reasoning by analogy to be discussed. Auto insurance > rates are going through the roof, and it seems evident that a few simple > corrective measures can bring them down for everyone. > > If a problem is decidable on its own merits, one need not introduce > irrelevant analogies to confound the issue. That is a request to evaluate an issue out of context. The examples were not only analogous but were of closely related issues. I'd say that, rhetorically, the analogies were aimed at the hypocrisy widespread among advocates of the mandatory seat belt laws. (But, as usual, the inference of purpose is educated guessing.) I was at a party not long ago, and got into a discussion on the subject. There was one woman who said that she thought it was stupid not to wear a seat belt, but who admitted that there were times that she had not worn one, for reasons of (ahem) comfort -- which, if I understood correctly, is one of the major popular reasons not to wear belts at times -- the risk had its rewards. There was a man who declared he had never worn a seat belt, and furthermore when the law went into effect still wouldn't wear one. Those two people were the two most vocal advocates of the damned new law. The woman was right. It is stupid not to have a restraint in case of collision *as a general practice or in dangerous road or traffic conditions*. But it is also stupid (for the average person) to avoid public contact for fear of catching a cold, to avoid sports for fear of injury, or to avoid swimming for fear of drowning. (I also found out that I have cut back too far on local news; there is an effort underway to place the repeal of the seat belt law on the ballot. I don't know if it will succeed. It needs 30,000 validated signatures, no more than 1/4 of which may come from any given county. At an optimistic rejection rate of 20%, that means gathering about 38,000 signatures by 6 January 1986. If the repeal makes it to the ballot, it will be a great opportunity for arguing about the proper justifications for laws. If not now, maybe later.) Even if rising auto insurance premiums were cause for action, an honest person would still have to examine what was behind them and their proposed antidotes in order to decide how best to act. For example (trying to choose from angles not already shown): - Why have medical costs in general been rising? - What is behind the attitude "Sue them if you can. They would sue you if they could." that inflates premiums? - Why aren't insurance companies able to judge better whether someone generally wears a belt or doesn't, and assess premiums accordingly? (It is ironic that they are deterred from discriminating when discrimination is essential to assessing risk.) - Why do so many people treat the matter of using seat belts amorally, as if the law spared them from moral judgement, and statistics from analysis? - What part of auto insurance premiums is due to seatbeltlessness, and what parts are due to, e.g., Reagan's "voluntary" import quotas on cars? David Hudson
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (12/28/85)
> In article <1467@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) writes: > > > >According to that "reasoning" we should ban smoking--after all, more people > >getting lung cancer raises everybody's insurance rate ... > > > > Lung cancer and house fires are irrelevant to the seat belt issue. It > needs no pseudo-reasoning by analogy to be discussed. ... > If a problem is decidable on its own merits, one need not introduce > irrelevant analogies to confound the issue. > Unfortunatly, Law works by precedent. Passing a law of one kind lends precedent to laws of similar kind. These 'irrelevant analogies' are what the future holds if the premise is validated. -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.
ems@amdahl.UUCP (ems) (12/28/85)
> > The New York seat belt law is estimated to have saved over 170 lives > already. Does this count? I am sure it does count for something. Your basic question is: does the ends justify the means. I would rather look to fundamental principles of freedom and democracy; of individual responsibility. However, the current vogue in government is to use means to justify ends and to replace individual responsibility with collective. Welcome to petty state socialism. -- E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems This is the obligatory disclaimer of everything.
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (12/29/85)
A 1979 Univ. of North Carolina study estimated that the direct costs associated with non-use of a lap and shoulder belt restraint is about $500 per occupant per crash. Direct costs include hospital costs, professional fees, lost wages, and funeral expenses. The societal costs, which include direct costs, are about $2500 per occupant per crash. Societal costs include all medical costs, funeral costs, legal and court costs, insurance costs, costs of investigating accidents, and costs from lost productivity due to disability, but do not include the unquantifiable pain and suffering experienced by victims and their loved ones. Opponents of mandatory seat-belt laws propose to deal with this situation by internalizing the costs of seat-belt non-use, by making the non-user pay the marginal cost incurred by his or her non-use, through higher insurance premiums, etc. I believe that this is unrealistic and utopian. It might be difficult in some cases to tell if an accident victim had been wearing a belt, and it would often be difficult to tell if non-use had contributed to causing an accident, as sometimes happens when the driver is thrown to one side. Then the cost of police, ambulance, ER, rehabilitation, and survivor welfare payments would also have to be internalized so that only the non-user bore their cost. I don't see how this can realistically be done, particularly in the case of poor people, unless we are going to refuse emergency room and rehabilitation services to people who cannot pay for them. Finally, how do you internalize the suffering and general disruption that your death or serious injury imposes on other people, particularly your family and co-workers? The opponents of seat-belt laws sometimes write as if the only person who would care if they died were themselves. So I think a reasonable albeit imperfect solution is to make seat-belt use mandatory. [One would not necessarily favor a general ban on cigarette smoking by the same reasoning. I favor increased insurance premiums for smokers, since it can be determined if one is a smoker or not. A general ban on cigarettes would, like Prohibition and unlike seat-belt laws, be very difficult to enforce. Millions of nicotine addicts would have to go cold turkey and people in the tobacco industry would have to be compensated. It is not a good analogy, although I do favor societal measures to reduce smoking (the proposed ban on cigarette advertising is worthy of consideration).] In states that do not have seat-belt laws, about 6 out of 7 motorists are not using belts at a given time. Do you really think that these motorists, like mountain climbers, have rationally weighed the risks and benefits and concluded that the 1.7 seconds they save or supposed increased comfort (I think seat-belts are very comfortable) outweighs the additional risk? Or is it more like this: You get into the car and don't even think about belts. You don't think about the possibility of an accident because it is very unpleasant to think of such a thing happening to *you*. If you do think about accidents you misjudge their likelihood and their potential costs to you and others. If you are a passenger you don't want to insult the driver by buckling up if, as is likely, he does not. If you are the driver you don't want to appear chicken to your passengers (don't laugh unless you have never cared if anyone thought you were chicken, especially as an adolescent). Perhaps you don't use the belt simply because you have never formed the habit, and humans are creatures of habit. I am trying to point out the complexities involved in such apparently simple acts of "free" choice, and that a seat-belt law that is enforced can provide benefits to the belt user himself, and as judged by himself. On the order of 15-20,000 deaths a year (and many more serious injuries) are attributed to seat-belt non-use in the US. I wish opponents of seat-belt laws would talk to the families and friends of these victims, such as a couple I know of who lost their teenage daughter in an accident where it was clear that she would not have died if she had been wearing a belt. Or talk with quadriplegics, a large proportion of whom received their injuries in auto accidents, and *none* of whom had been wearing belts. If you can convince such persons that mandatory seat-belt laws are a bad idea, my hat's off to you. -- Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (12/29/85)
> > > > The New York seat belt law is estimated to have saved over 170 lives > > already. Does this count? > > I am sure it does count for something. Your basic question > is: does the ends justify the means. > > I would rather look to fundamental principles of freedom and > democracy; of individual responsibility. However, the > current vogue in government is to use means to justify ends > and to replace individual responsibility with collective. > > Welcome to petty state socialism. > -- > E. Michael Smith ...!{hplabs,ihnp4,amd,nsc}!amdahl!ems > Ha! Awake, my naive Michael! You welcome petty socialism now? Where have you been when the big, nasty government make it illegal to drive without seat belts all over America? (Yep, you must have seatbelts in your car, or your car will not pass inspection.) Where have you been when the very fascist institution of state inspection was introduced? Whose damn bussiness is to check whether carbon monoxide can penetrate to your passanger compartment? Shouldn't you be free to drive with your windows open? Michael, the largest calamity is behind us: we were forced to purchase seatbelts, whether we intended to use them or not. A request to use the is just one of many on the slippery slope... Piotr Berman *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
john@gcc-milo.ARPA (John Allred) (12/29/85)
In article <959@brl-tgr.ARPA> abc@brl-tgr.ARPA (Brint Cooper (CTAB) <abc>) writes: > >The New York seat belt law is estimated to have saved over 170 lives >already. Does this count? Well, maybe. My gut feel is that the 170 people saved will end up killing themselves by doing something as stupid as not wearing seatbelts. -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john
tdh@frog.UUCP (T. Dave Hudson) (12/30/85)
(Incidentally, the contact points for placing the repeal of Massachusetts' seat belt law onto the ballot are either radio station WRKO's Jerry Williams or: (617) 682-6055 after 5PM or (617) 722-2784 before 5PM. Deadlines are 6 January except for Boston, which is 10 January, for turning signatures in to registrars or election commisioners.) While collecting signatures to place repeal of the cumpulsory seat belt law here in Massachusetts (in the #@*! cold) onto the ballot, I ran into several people who said they were in favor of the law. Of some of them I asked, "In favor of encouraging them to wear seat belts or compelling them?" Most said "Encouraging them", and one said, "Wearing them." That is, they were either too stupid or too cowardly to admit that by advocating the law they were advocating compulsion. A separate conversation went something like: Passer-by: I just started wearing my seat belt to get used to it before they start enforcing it. I thing the law is a good thing. Me: Didn't you think wearing it was a good thing before? P: Yes. M: Then why didn't you wear it? P (sheepishly): Well, you know, people sometimes need a little push to do what's good for them. At least the fuzzyhead was (apparently) honest. Hail, Caesar! David Hudson
john@gcc-milo.ARPA (John Allred) (12/31/85)
In article <375@aoa.UUCP> mbr@aoa.UUCP (Mark Rosenthal) writes: >This idea gets suggested now and then. It may be a good idea in principle, but >it depends on an impartial administrator to judge whether or not you were >buckled up. Do you really think we can trust the insurance companies to be >impartial when their money is involved? Well, the windshield can be "an impartial administrator." If there is a head- shaped dent in it, the idiot was not wearing a seatbelt.-- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (12/31/85)
>A 1979 Univ. of North Carolina study estimated that the direct costs >associated with non-use of a lap and shoulder belt restraint is about >$500 per occupant per crash. Direct costs include hospital costs, >professional fees, lost wages, and funeral expenses. The societal >costs, which include direct costs, are about $2500 per occupant per >crash. Societal costs include all medical costs, funeral costs, >legal and court costs, insurance costs, costs of investigating >accidents, and costs from lost productivity due to disability, but do >not include the unquantifiable pain and suffering experienced by >victims and their loved ones. > This suggests a way of reconciling the "freedom if it kills me" approach with the "it costs us all" problem. Frame the law so that anyone who wishes not to wear a seat-belt may do so on payment of a $3000 licence fee. The car owner should display the "no seat-belt" sticker on the windshield, and a passenger could keep the licence in the wallet. It would be a minor crime (like driving without a licence) to be unbelted in a car without having a stupidity licence. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
nrh@inmet.UUCP (01/05/86)
>/* Written 8:17 pm Dec 28, 1985 by carnes@gargoyle in inmet:net.politics */ >[discussion of costs to society of non-use of seatbelts. About > $2500/occupant/crash, not including pain & suffering] >Opponents of mandatory seat-belt laws propose to deal with this >situation by internalizing the costs of seat-belt non-use, by making >the non-user pay the marginal cost incurred by his or her non-use, >through higher insurance premiums, etc. I believe that this is >unrealistic and utopian. Actually, only some opponents of mandatory seat belt laws do this. Others simply point out that making seat-belt use mandatory on economic grounds is consistent with far-reaching regulation of LOTS of things on economic grounds, so perhaps we should either drop the idea, destroy the grounds (by internalizing the costs) or (to be consistent) regulate such behavior as smoking, overeating, not getting enough exercise, comsuming carcinogens, and being nice to each other. >It might be difficult in some cases to tell >if an accident victim had been wearing a belt, and it would often be >difficult to tell if non-use had contributed to causing an accident, >as sometimes happens when the driver is thrown to one side. My understanding (limited) is that it is not difficult to tell this in a negative sense -- that is, it is normally easy to tell if a seatbelt has borne a strain commensurate with the forces involved in keeping you from going through the windshield. It seems to me also, that it would suffice to place the burden of proof on the insurance companies -- that is, the difficulty in proving that someone WAS wearing a seatbelt need not arise -- it would be the insurance company's problem (always assuming that the agreement with the insured was worded this way) to establish that the insured had indeed violated the contract. My understanding is that this is pretty typical of the insurer-insured relationship now -- that is you do not have to establish that you are not defrauding the company, rather it is typically the company that must investigate you to find if you are defrauding it (although you must, of course, cooperate to some extent with such an investigation). >Then the >cost of police, ambulance, ER, rehabilitation, and survivor welfare >payments would also have to be internalized so that only the non-user >bore their cost. I don't see how this can realistically be done, >particularly in the case of poor people, unless we are going to >refuse emergency room and rehabilitation services to people who >cannot pay for them. Only the non-user bears their costs? Nobody's proposed that! The non-user simply doesn't benefit from having joined whatever insurance pool he's in, that's all -- in other words, he gets a bill for services that OTHERWISE would have not cost him anything additional because he was a member of a pool. Of course, the big costs of running patrols, hospitals, welfare, and so on would be borne by the folks involved, whether those efforts are public or private -- non wearers would simply contribute more (and thus wearers would need to contribute less). >Finally, how do you internalize the suffering >and general disruption that your death or serious injury imposes on >other people, particularly your family and co-workers? Hah! You don't even MENTION the difficulty of internalizing the glee if the person killed was horrid! The nice thing about those costs is that they are non-quantifiable, and hence fine fodder for emotional rhetoric, but very difficult to say anything useful about. I think we both sympathize with these families, and would rather they not suffer. Beyond that.... >The opponents >of seat-belt laws sometimes write as if the only person who would >care if they died were themselves. So I think a reasonable albeit >imperfect solution is to make seat-belt use mandatory. The proponents of seat-belt laws write as if they don't realize that their opponents do NOT (so far as I know) disdain or oppose the wearing of seatbelts. >[One would not necessarily favor a general ban on cigarette smoking by >the same reasoning. I favor increased insurance premiums for >smokers, since it can be determined if one is a smoker or not. A >general ban on cigarettes would, like Prohibition and unlike >seat-belt laws, be very difficult to enforce. Ho! I suppose you have compliance figures on the seat-belt laws? >Millions of nicotine >addicts would have to go cold turkey and people in the tobacco >industry would have to be compensated. But what about the folks in the hospital and ambulance business in the case of seat belts? Remember, those medical costs and such represented GAINS to someone else. Having instituted the seatbelt laws, should we now be required to "compensate" the folks in medicine? Undertakers? Road Crews? By the way, F. Paul Wilson wrote a very good short story on what happens when the government institutes socialized medicine and then figures out the best way to lower the high costs involved is to (get this) force everyone to eat better diets. The story's called "Lipidleggin'", and you can find it in the "Survival of Freedom" anthology edited by Pournelle & Carr. >It is not a good analogy, >although I do favor societal measures to reduce smoking (the proposed >ban on cigarette advertising is worthy of consideration).] > >In states that do not have seat-belt laws, about 6 out of 7 motorists >are not using belts at a given time. Do you really think that these >motorists, like mountain climbers, have rationally weighed the risks >and benefits and concluded that the 1.7 seconds they save or supposed >increased comfort (I think seat-belts are very comfortable) outweighs >the additional risk? Not at all! I merely support their right to be foolish if they don't wish to think about what's going to happen. I also have the queer idea that something shouldn't be illegal unless the law is to be enforced. >.... >On the order of 15-20,000 deaths a year (and many more serious injuries) >are attributed to seat-belt non-use in the US. I wish opponents of >seat-belt laws would talk to the families and friends of these >victims, such as a couple I know of who lost their teenage daughter >in an accident where it was clear that she would not have died if she >had been wearing a belt. This is nothing! Think about all the folks who (for some reason) do not wish to make it illegal to eat wrong! Think of all the Cancer victims who would have lived had they simply gotten less Soy sauce! I'm serious! This sort of emotional appeal ("people who oppose a law enforcing X should talk with people who might have benefited from such a law") is fine for rabble-rousing (and who am I to deny that there's a large "rabble" element in net.politics?) but has no place if you're trying to convince us that such a law is a good *idea*. It's worth pointing out that making seat-belt use REQUIRED doesn't make the 15-20,000 deaths go away -- nor will it be possible to show how many lives were saved because people decided to buckle up. >Or talk with quadriplegics, a large >proportion of whom received their injuries in auto accidents, and >*none* of whom had been wearing belts. The source for this remarkable statistic? >If you can convince such >persons that mandatory seat-belt laws are a bad idea, my hat's off to >you. I'm told that the Virginia (or was it one of the Carolinas?) branch of the American Cancer Society still refuses to admit that smoking causes cancer. Why? I don't know, but let's posit that they've got motives which may blind them to the evidence. I suspect the same to be true of those grief-stricken by loss. "Convincing" them would no more make the mandatory seat-belt law a good idea than "convincing" the Virginia ACS would make cigarette smoking a bad idea. You follow the logic? Convincing people of things is not the index of how true those things are unless the people involved don't have biases. Anyhow my final word here is a suggestion to buckle up!
lynx@qvax2.UUCP (D.N. Lynx Crowe@ex2207) (01/08/86)
Bravo! It's nice to see a reasoned response to an emotional issue for a change. One of the biggest problems with government (other than that it exists...) is its tendency to interfere with people's private lives. "When there's been no victim, there's been no crime." Note: "Society" is an abstraction, NOT a person, and the argument of crimes against "Society" is a specious one at best.
akers@oliven.UUCP (Rob Akers) (01/08/86)
> In article <1467@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) writes: > > > >According to that "reasoning" we should ban smoking--after all, more people > >getting lung cancer raises everybody's insurance rate ... > > > >Furthermore, the same should be applied to, for instance, fires started by cigarettes... > > > >DISCLAIMER: I support neither the "charge the seatbelt skippers who have > >accidents" nor the "charge the smokers who start fires" policies. I am just > >trting to show how ridiculous the "charge the seatbelt skippers" idea is. > > > Lung cancer and house fires are irrelevant to the seat belt issue. It > needs no pseudo-reasoning by analogy to be discussed. Auto insurance > rates are going through the roof, and it seems evident that a few simple > corrective measures can bring them down for everyone. > > If a problem is decidable on its own merits, one need not introduce > irrelevant analogies to confound the issue. > > Brint If you believe auto insurance rates will go down if seat belt laws are passed, then you probably also beleve in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. Rob Akers
ibyf@ihlpa.UUCP (Scott) (01/10/86)
> > In article <1467@jhunix.UUCP> ins_akaa@jhunix.ARPA (Kenneth Adam Arromdee) writes: > > >According to that "reasoning" we should ban smoking--after all, more people > > >getting lung cancer raises everybody's insurance rate ... > > > > Lung cancer and house fires are irrelevant to the seat belt issue. It > > If a problem is decidable on its own merits, one need not introduce > > irrelevant analogies to confound the issue. > > > > Brint > I don't know what ISSUE your seat-belt law was decided on, but here in Illinois, the last thing thompson (notice no respect given) said before he passed it was, "...because its good for you" Good for me? This idiot doesn't even know me! If he is so concerened with public health and safety, the smoking in public issue carries far more weight than seat-belts. I can drive to work daily, and if I don't get in an accident, wearing a seat-belt or not has made no difference in my general well being. (don't start a discussion about if being a big word!) but I daily come in contact with people who smoke, and since I have this terrible addiction to breathing, I have to breathe this polluted air. That does affect my general well being and I have no choice about it! The issues are not irrelevant, they both discuss government interference with the private sector (Gee, don't I remeber something about that being illegal from poly-sci class) the real point is that all this is only a facade, and the real issue is the auto manufactures putting pressue on the largely populated areas of the country so that "air-bag legislation" is NOT passed forcing them to re-tool. Our government is knuckeling under to this pressure. Chrysler has promised to build a plant in Illinois, and you can bet your bottom dollar that they told thompson "if you pass the law" . This will of course create some jobs and revitalize the economy somewhat. So I can't say I'm not in favor of the law, but that's another matter. The point in either case (and some others which I'm sure will follow) is should we allow the gov to interfere with us? What CAN we do about it? My vote is to stop it NOW! Addison ihnp4!ihlpa!ibyf My brother? I always thought of him as mom and dad's science project.